From the Grand Stand

Testing Word Press

2006-02-11T15:15:00.000-08:00

I'm considering a permanent switch to WordPress because of the Google nonsense with China. If WordPress is a disaster, I'll find something else.

Please update your link to:

http://grandstand.wordpress.com/

Comments are closed here, because everything was imported over there.

What is the Goal?

2006-02-11T07:26:00.000-08:00

During the last several hundred years the world has been at some sort of stand-off or all out war.  This is not unusual for the human experience.  War is as much a part of the human condition as the tides are to the ocean.  In the general sense then, the big issue has always been about survival, but medical and technological advances have made basic needs so much easier to acquire that we've been able to spend a great deal of our time and energies on loftier subjects.

We're always aware, however, that some people are living without basic needs.  Since we are unable to feed and house everyone, especially those living under dictatorships and oppression, the thought that it could happen to us if we're not careful is always on our minds.  It provides a kind of awareness balancing act.

Liberating a people from a brute and preventing brute invasions seems to be how we've been passing the time, but we've also talked a great deal about things like freedom and the more difficult to define liberty.

We've been busy.  We had a new nation to develop.  We had laws and the lawless to deal with.  We've had industries to build and technologies to invent.  And every now and again we've had wars to fight, with plenty of time before and after to discuss the merits of the action, or whether we should have been involved at all.

It is important, every now and again, to pause to consider what it is exactly that we're trying to achieve.  In other words, what is the goal?

If we imagine that there would be a time when we have resolved it, that we have achieved the objective of freeing all people living in dictatorships, what will we do then?  More importantly, we need to focus on what that might look like and how we'd behave without the drama in our lives distracting our attention.

Freedom is an interesting concept.  If we look back a few hundred years, to the time when people took great risk to make the journey to the United States, or cross the plains to a frontier, what is it that a person wanted once they got where they were headed?  Why did they do that?

In the simplest terms, they wanted a way to survive.  The idea of owning a piece of land that you could work to support your family was a way of providing the basic needs to survival:  shelter, food, and safety.

People built their own homes, from the timber and materials on the land they purchased.  They grew their own food and traded or bartered for what they could not provide themselves.  They were prepared and were often called upon to defend themselves, either from wild animals or thieves.  This took a lot of their time.

And they got that.  Millions of people in America got exactly what it was they came here to get.  Their basic needs were met and they were then able to focus on something else.  They lived and died achieving their desires.  What next?

I won't go on with the boring details, but suffice it to say that the original goal of basic survival having been achieved, people created new goals, much more difficult to achieve and define, and set about to acquire that something else.

In most cases, however, the new goals required that you get your fellows to get on board with the idea.  You needed more than just your own family to take it to the next level.

We've dramatically altered the definition of basic needs.  There was once a goal that every house in America have running water and a toilet that didn't cause disease for the family who used it.  Then it was electricity and all the assorted appliances that you plugged into it, from simple lighting to microwave ovens.  There are some who argue that a child being raised in a poor family is denied the basic tools of survival if he doesn't have a telephone, a computer to access the Internet, and a television with a cable hook up.

No longer required to build a home, work the land, or defend yourself, it is no wonder that people have become bored and without anything else to focus their energies, turn to petty or nuisance crimes or sloth.

Man is a working dog.  And just like working dogs, he becomes destructive if he doesn't have anything productive to do.  Also like dogs, man is a social animal, and is in a constant state of assessing his position in the pack, jockeying for better position and respect.

Billions of working dogs without enough activity to keep them drained of nervous energy can become a problem.  It is no accident that countries that adopt communism find it necessary to keep their populations working at menial jobs, with barely enough food to keep their mind focused on the next meal, rather than revolution.  Are they happy?

But in America, poor people are fat.  There is no reason why a child would go to bed hungry.  There is always enough and always enough charity to feed everyone who lives here.

So what's left to do in America?  There is enough work for everyone to provide basic needs.  There is an abundance of food in food banks and welfare for those who want it.

Each person is left to do what they were always supposed to be doing:  pursue happiness.  If, however, happiness comes at the expense of another, or measured in comparison to how much happiness our neighbors appear to have, we will be unhappy, low pecking order dogs.  Someone will always be better off than us.  Unless we're in the handful of multi-billionaires or idle-rich on the planet, we're bound to be lower on the pecking order.  No matter how rich and idle we become, someone will always be idler and richer.  What then?

There comes a point when we must turn our happiness pursuit inward.  When we recognize that what differentiates us from beasts, if we wish to make the separation, is our ability to channel our primitive instincts to rule the pack, to rule our mind and conquer our base instincts—when the pursuit becomes more meaningful than the undefined happiness and shifts to a kind of contentment and peace with ourselves.

Other than basic needs and the comforts which afford us the time and energy for reflection and thought, external pursuits of happiness lead to unhappiness.  That unhappiness causes us to think that there must be some external force limiting our freedom because, many think, true freedom would lead to happiness and if they're still not happy living in the land of the free, then it must be because they lack freedom.  If we could do whatever we want then we would be happy?

More and more we see that trend.  More freedom, a complete surrendering of any self-imposed limits on expression, seems to be what results.

We've moved from freedom enough to provide our basic needs, to freedom enough to do whatever we want, without the requisite consequence.  The meaning of freedom, the purpose of liberty, has been redefined.  It is no longer enough that you may exercise rights, defended by the benevolent state.  Now we've moved to a completely different realm of freedom.  One, I might add, was never part of the definition--a kind of exercise of rights that has no downside and no risk.

Freedom no longer means to be allowed to take a risk as long as you were willing to accept the consequences.  No one was going to stop you from choosing to be an idiot, a cad, or a scoundrel, but there would be consequences (some dire) if you chose to be.  Freedom has been twisted to mean something else entirely--that you are free from consequences, risk, results, reaction.  This means that people believe they are "free" to be as immoral, selfish, and reckless as they want and cry oppression! if they are challenged or called upon to deal with the results of their actions.

The cliché of "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose" seems to have been revised to "your right to swing your fist exists without boundary and other folks better move their nose out of the way if you should pass."

The goal was pursuit of happiness.  No one ever guaranteed you'd get it.  The goal still is the pursuit of happiness, but not at the expense of another's happiness or without risks or consequences, and the individual's inability to achieve it.  But if liberty has been proven to be ineffective to the pursuit, with personal responsibility left by the wayside, what then?

Poke Your Eye Out

2006-02-08T06:32:00.000-08:00

I don't have a source to know if Gandhi actually said it, but I always remember the quote from the film in which he said, "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind."

I was raised (obviously) in a Christian dominated culture so the idea of an "eye for an eye" was outside of my realm.

I mention this because some folks (not all, important qualifier "some") have said that it is perfectly appropriate for the Danish newspaper to publish the cartoons because the Middle East publishes cartoons that are so much worse.

So we all go blind. If Gandhi's more philosophical reproach doesn't work for you, how about this:

"Billy called me bad name so I called him a bad name back."

We're supposed to be the adults and the ones setting an example here.

Other rebuttals include "well, it is good that the folks who hold these views are being fleshed out."

You know, when you orchestrate an event to "flesh out" it's generally a good idea to have your ducks in a row before you do it, so it doesn't turn into a goat rodeo when you do. I am reminded of the police preparedness before the second Rodney King trial announcement was released, and the unprecedented delay in releasing the verdict so that the National Guard could be on the ready and all police were positioned in place. In addition, it was determined that it would not be released during rush hour and timed for release at a time when the fewest people would be on the street.

Perhaps the Danish newspaper could have warned their government so they could have had their embassies on stand-by and their troops on full alert. Otherwise, it would have been irresponsible, if they knew the kind of backlash it would cause.

There are only two ways to interpret the lack of warning:
1. They didn't care.
2. They didn't expect the reaction.

Both say a lot about their actions and the lack of responsibility they demonstrated when they decided to exercise their right to freedom of the press.

Depending on the one you choose, it would seem to contradict the idea that "they did this to identify the terrorists so we could strike against them."

The fact that Europe has only a few thousand troops in the region, would seem to indicate that they were perfectly happy (as usual) to allow the U.S. to clean up their messes.

Others have brought up the timing and are suspicious that this event was orchestrated to deflect from other problems needing our attention, such as Iran.

To that: A great big DUH!

Every mistake or mis-step we take is going to be used as ammunition by our enemies. The thing that has been unique about the War on Terror (that begin back in the Vietnam era) is that with all the screeching about the freedom of the press, our government has been unable to properly conduct the most important aspect of winning a war: Control of information. 80% of the success of a war effort is the war of information.

The terrorists know they cannot win a conventional war, which is why they've never attempted to fight one. What they've been trying to create, from the beginning, is a classic grassroots revolutionary element to "spark" an uprising among the Muslim world--they've been poking at us to force us to make a mistake so they can use it to create that "spark."

None of this should come as a surprise as it comes directly from the Anarchists Playbook. Anyone wishing to understand that playbook should read about the Anarchist Movements of the 19th Century. It's all in there and OBL and Al Qa'eda have been running their plays by the book from the beginning. There is nothing unique or strange about the way they've handled it.

Perhaps that is why I find this whole brouhaha so disconcerting (besides the obvious childishness of opting for playground antics and tit-for-tat exchanges of repulsive caricatures). It is so blatantly obvious what the terrorists are trying to do, I find it incredible that folks in The West are playing their part so effectively as to create nice little wrapped packaged victories for the terrorists.

From the beginning, the President has couched this war as "A war for the hearts and minds..." Other than his initial slip of using the word "crusade" (lower case "C"), he has chosen his word very carefully.

But not so the rest of the world.

In 10 to 20 years, after we have a stable Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as others that would have been pushed over the edge toward more democrat rule) we could have had these little tests of free speech tolerance, but while the roots of democracy are still young and weak, it does nothing except weaken the possibility of success.

But, perhaps I've been mistaken all along. Maybe I've been viewing all of this through rose-colored glasses, truly believing that The West meant what they said about tolerance. Maybe most people were encouraged by the President's use of the word "crusade" and hoped he meant it with a capital C. Maybe the sea of glass is what they truly want and are trying to give the terrorists the spark they are seeking so they can see their ambitions of eradicating the Middle East come to fruition.

The evidence and behavior on the part of The West would seem to indicate that is what many desire.

Be careful what you wish for. The nuclear fallout cannot be effectively contained. Israel is a small country and would certainly catch the fallout.

Good?

2006-02-05T10:16:00.000-08:00

I'm not feeling particularly proud of us these days--by "us" I mean "The West."

We have the opportunity to demonstrate that we value the good, even though we have the choice not to be--that we can value virtue and freedom without leaving the other in its wake.

But these days, the latest events of people not choosing good, has left me feeling ashamed. Choose in solidarity with those who advocate prejudice or choose to stand with those who would legislate it out of existance? Are these the only choices?

No. I choose a third option.

Dinesh D'Souza has written many times and in many ways that this isn't a war about political ideology. It isn't even a war about religion. What this is really all about is what a society regards as the ideal.

He has argued that America and The West can make the case that we are a virtuous society, and value virtue above all things, because we have the choice not to be evil, even though we have the freedom, the Free Will, to do so.

That argument, however, is predicated on the idea that we do believe those things, and that we can demonstrate that we are a virtuous people.

Today, with all the news of vulgarity and religious intolerance being the fad, I think we lost this stage of the debate.

I hope that tomorrow will bring another chance to score on the side of virtue rather than supporting freedom, no matter how ugly it may be. If we cannot find a way to value freedom and virtue equally, we have lost, and I dare say I'd be glad if we did. There is a way to support freedom, to believe in it fully, while simultaneously standing up for what is good and virtuous.

Dinish D'Souza writes:

This is the argument that Americans should make to people in the Islamic world. It is a mistake to presume that Muslims would be totally unreceptive to it. Islam, which has common roots with Judaism and Christianity, respects the autonomy of the individual soul. Salvation for Muslims, no less than for Jews and Christians, is based on the soul choosing freely to follow God. We can make the case to Muslims that freedom is not a secular invention; rather, freedom is a gift from God. Moreover, it is not the case that Islamic fundamentalists care about virtue while we in the West care only about freedom. We, too, care about virtue; like them, we seek the good society; but we disagree with the Islamic fundamentalists about the best means to achieve this goal. In the Western view, freedom is the necessary precondition for virtue. Without freedom, there is no virtue. I believe this is an argument that well-meaning Muslims would have to consider.

The arguments on behalf of freedom, and of America, are not only for the benefit of Muslims in the Arab world; they are also for the benefit of people in America and the West. To help counter the anti-Americanism that we see from Europeans and sometimes even from Americans, we can confidently show our allies, our citizens, and our idealistic young people that America is not simply richer, more varied, and more tolerant, it is also morally superior to the fundamentalists' version of Islamic society. It was Edmund Burke a long time ago who wrote, "To love our country, our country ought to be lovely." Burke's point is that the highest form of patriotism is not based on the dogmatic assertion, "My country, right or wrong." Nor is the highest form of patriotism based on loving your country simply because it is yours. Rather, the highest form of patriotism is based on loving your country because it is good.

In my view America, for all its flaws and weaknesses, can meet Burke's test. America merits a rational patriotism that can confront, and answer, the strongest criticisms of this country. Ultimately America is worthy of our love and sacrifice because, more than any other society, it makes possible for its citizens the good life, and equally important, the life that is good.

I cannot make that argument today. I have hope to see reason to make the argument again, but today I feel ashamed that we choose to rally to support ugly, in the name of "freedom."

The World Has Gone Stark Raving Mad

2006-02-05T07:43:00.000-08:00

In a Denmark newspaper there was a call for offensive cartoons to challenge the murderers of van Gogh. It was an intentionally offensive gesture. The cartoons were published and the world has basically divided into two sides: those that think that the sacrilegious depictions of their religious leader need to be punished, and those who think that free speech has no consequences.

I've been wondering about the actions of the Danish newspaper: What did they think was going to happen? Certainly they did it for a reason. They wanted a reaction or they wouldn't have done it. Those who picked up the torch thought so, too.

I wonder if they're happy now. They got exactly what they wanted. They got to be as rude, crude, and as offensive as they like and no one prevented it from happening. No government official in Denmark stopped the presses. Other folks, in solidarity with being offensive and spitting on the religions of others, have added their voice in support.

Is this really what people want?

Do you really want to show solidarity, in the name of "Free Speech," to support the actions of those who show intolerance to those of another faiths? Do you want your protest banners to say, "Free Speech for Bigots! Disrespectful and proud of it!"

Personally? I've had it. It has been a line in the sand for me as well.

The government isn't going to stop people from being rude. They're not going to stop Daily Kos or any other lefty journo from printing lies and slandering those in public offices or in the trenches. People like Cindy Sheehan can get all the airtime she wants, no matter how ridiculous her claims and no matter how offensive her statements. Billboards advertising strip clubs are going to go up where children can see them. Department stores in New York can display dildos in their shop windows, right where children can see them.

And this is what has come of Free Speech? This is the conclusion of the great experiment--that we are willing to fight for the right to draw cartoons? This is how people want to cherish the right to express an opinion and demonstrate to the world how wonderful democracy and Free Will really are?

By showing to the world that they don't give a damn about anyone or anything?

Is NOTHING sacred?

Free Will is an interesting thing. So is the concept of Rights.

There was a time when the utterance of a remark that others found offensive required the offender to step outside or leave town. It was clear to everyone that the government wasn't going to get involved, but civil society certainly was.

Speech has consequences. Without consequences, without reaction, you might as well be shouting the alphabet from the mount.

No, no one is going to stop the presses. It also seems that no one is going to attempt to exercise civility and decency anymore.

I don't care what you think of Islam or any other religion, but it is not a big deal, it truly isn't, to demonstrate religious tolerance by being respectful of another's icons. No, you don't have to. That's what makes it a test--that no one is going to make you do it. The government isn't going to shut you down.

A person of decency and character would never intentionally offend another person. Offending others isn't cool, daring, or even funny. It's simply the actions of a pig. Since civil society either no longer exists or no longer cares to police itself, what is the appropriate response to demonstrations of "support for being intolerant and offensive"?

Frankly, I have no idea what the appropriate response is. What I do know, is that I no longer want to play. The feminization of the culture is complete. There are no gentlemen left in this world. There doesn't appear to be anyone left who even knows what it means.

You have The Right to say whatever you want. No one is going to try to stop you and you'll get thousands and thousands of people ready to support you, no matter how vulgar, offensive, or intolerant you are.

And this is what people want to go to war over? THIS is worth it? We are willing to go to war over our Right to be idiots and cads? This is a "Far, far better thing"?

The minds of some of our statesmen, like the pupil of the human eye, contract themselves the more, the stronger light there is shed upon them. --Sir Thomas More

On Saving the World

2006-01-30T09:24:00.000-08:00

If I had a dollar…

If I had a dollar for each time someone says, "but there is no point in doing that unless we can get everyone to participate" (or the like), I'd be a millionaire.  Ditto for every solution that begins with "let's fix…" or "how to reform…"

No matter where you go on the Internet you are going to run into people who will tell you that certain problems cannot be solved.  You will also find people who will suggest "we just need to do…" as the cure all solution for whatever problem is being discussed.

Neither is right and they're both right.

The problem is the noun.  It is always the noun.

If "other people" would do...

If "they" would do…

If "the President" would...

If "Congress" would…

If "the people" in that country would…

If criminals would stop committing crime we wouldn't have a crime problem.

If women would stop having abortions we could stop discussing Roe v Wade or the pros and cons of illegal or legal abortion.

If parents would stop abusing their children we wouldn't have a child abuse problem and wouldn't need to reform or monitor the actions of child welfare departments.

If people would stop drinking to excess we wouldn't have a drunk-driving problem.

If all people were of equal intelligence and talent, we wouldn't have an education problem.

If all people were of like minds, we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

In every example you can list, the issue is not that we don't all recognize that crime, abortion, education, abuse, or destructive behaviors aren't a problem or an issue needing some correction.

The problem, as I said, is the noun.

You can't fix "the world."  Not being able to fix "the world" doesn't mean you can't do anything or that you don't participate in being part of the solution.

Stop looking to other people to come up with a solution. BE the solution.

Repair yourself and don't do any of the things you think are bad or broken.

If you think the education system needs repair, divest from it, and find a solution for you that works.

If you think abortion is the issue of the century, help one girl to either not need to consider an abortion or adopt the child she carries to term.

If you think crime is a problem, don't commit crime, don't associate with anyone who does, and try to stop any crime in progress.

If you think there are children who can be helped, help them.

Don't measure success by "the world."  Measure it by what you do.  Are you perfect?  Have you done everything YOU can to the best of your ability?

That's the only measurement of success there is.

If your world view is that other people aren't doing their share, or that we can only measure success if everything is solved tomorrow, you won't ever leave the starting gate.

It begins and ends with you.  Fix that and "the world" will be a better place.

Why the subject?

2006-01-07T11:01:00.000-08:00

Someone emailed to ask why the sudden posts about Identity and garb.  Disclosing the details could give away my secret identity (so I won't disclose it), but it was based on a trip to a small, liberal-leaning city.  The Group Think was palpable and the experience left me feeling dirty.

I try to avoid places like this (as I wish they'd try to avoid my home city) because I do not like being around them (any more than they like being around someone like me), but this trip was unavoidable, and the purpose of the trip and the company not at all unpleasant (the people we visited were terrific).  When in liberal-land, however, I'm on their turf and feel it necessary to stifle myself, including all the usual things that get me into trouble, such as out-and-out laughing at people or getting into unnecessary and futile arguments.  This is not a state of being that I enjoy.

At one restaurant we were waited on by someone who was spending her discretionary money on a full body tattoo.  While she's free to do whatever she wants with her money and to her body, my reaction was cold, disturbing, and probably inappropriate:  I didn't want her to touch my food.  Had I been true to myself I would have said something, caused a scene (embarrassed my family), and left, but I didn't do those things.  This partially explains the "feeling dirty" result.  I couldn't wait to get out of there.

I just won't go there again.  This is probably unjustified, but no less worthy of expression than tattoo circus waitress.

::shudders::

I'll be out for a week.  No blogging.

When in Rome

2006-01-05T09:17:00.000-08:00

In the Identity post below I talked about people who attempt to hide the nothingness within by adding flair to the shell.  Some people got it immediately (Sean and Eric, of course).

There is another aspect of this that may seem contrary on the surface, but if life wasn't so full of contradictions it would be boring and there'd be nothing to think or write about.

Before I go there I want to mention a few things that will only become relevant when I get to the end.

If you dropped me, blindfolded, out of an airplane, in just about any city in the world, or if you lined up 100 people in an unrecognizable conference room, I could tell you where I was.  Well, I could tell you where the people were from.  It would be slightly clouded by race, but if you were careful in your selections of race, I could still do it.  I could determine it by the way the people dressed (their clothing, hair, make up, etc.).  The easiest of all are New Yorkers.  Second are Minneapolitans.  Third are Bostonians.  Seattle is a no-brainer.  If you add mannerisms and gait, I could do Philadelphia.  The South would be a little bit more difficult, but I would get "South" without any problem at all.  Whether it was Atlanta or Memphis, Pine Bluff or Tyler would be difficult, but I could qualify "South" with "rural," "metropolis," or "small city."  Of course there are vast wastelands that would be difficult to differentiate, but I'd again be close by identifying it by region.

You could jerry-rig the experiment so I'd fail it.  The best way to do that would be to pick global cliques (punk bands, Goths, clergy, or Dead Heads).  Sex Pistol fans and copy cats existed all over the place and they dressed the same.  I could not identify them by region, only by clique.

Europeans are even easier—even without racial characteristics.

Of course most of us could do it if you asked the people to speak.  Dialect would be a dead give-away.  However, and this is the interesting part, if you included transplants (people who weren't born in that region and didn't speak with the same dialect) their attire and style would give them away.

Even though the world is becoming more and more homogenized because of global television programming, American films, and global chain stores, the individual selections in a region are specific to the region.  "Valley Girl Speak," because of television, is no longer limited to the suburban areas of Los Angeles.  It is now an intentionally assumed affectation because of television shows like 90210 or other teen directed soap operas.

This is all the more apparent when you are someplace else, such as the crowds outside Harrod's on the day before the sales begin.  You can see the Americans.  Light colored shoes are the dead give-away (sneakers, etc.).  Americans on Holiday dress comfortably, but this is wholly different from the Brits who dress stylishly, but practically (with sensible shoes).  The Parisian women are first given away by their perfume, the permanent fragrant cloud that precedes them, but you can't confirm them as French until you see how they dress and then by how they walk.

I frequently travel on business and this became even more apparent when attending a seminar with attendees from all over Europe.  When groups would walk in you would immediately know "The Italians are here," or "The Germans have arrived."  Had I not been there and done that, I might not have realized just how stereotypical most of this actually is.  The Italians were always late, but they looked good.  The Germans were always on time (never early), unlike the Dutch who were early and extremely well prepared and therefore bored, as were the Swiss, but they didn't dress as trendy and always seemed to be worried that they were doing something wrong (constantly asking for validation that they were doing things correctly).  The Belgians were identifiable by not being so.  They always seemed a bit confused and slightly out of step, as if they'd been locked in some sort of alternate reality and thrust into a world they no longer recognized.  The French arrived with flair unique to the French.  They were there (late, but not as late as the Italians), weren't you glad they'd arrived, but they didn't care.  The Brits, well, the Brits were stylish but frumpy and they were so glad you'd invited them, but were always distracted and losing their place.  We could never find the Greeks.  Someone from Greece came, always the wrong person, but he never stayed very long, popping in and out to give the appearance of attending, but quick to disappear in case they were asked a question.

There were us Americans, all mixed up race- and clothing-wise, but you could see us from a mile away.  We smile (and laugh) with bold, drag-queen like gestures.  We are loud.

In other Continents the same types of things give the people away.

When you're out in public then, what is the goal—the ideal?  If we don't care what people think of us, how do we respond in situations like these?  What respect or deference do we show to the areas we visit?

When Shirley Temple Black was appointed as Ambassador to Ghana, 60 Minutes attempted to do an episode that put her through a shredder.  They even admitted it at the end of the program.  But she won them over.  She, out of respect and deference, donned the local garb and it was clear that she did so not to artificially assert herself, but because she wanted to be part of them, and get to know them in an intimate way.  The people loved her.

The late Katherine Hepburn said that her costume was her greatest asset when developing a character.  She would research her roles and attempt to manufacture the undergarments of the period because it changed the way she held herself, and gave her insight into the period that she couldn't get any other way.

I believe the goal is not to stick out like a sore thumb.  Refusing to groom or wash is the height of arrogance.  We don’t want to be false, but somehow respectful, finding a balance in there somewhere.  If you stick out you will be treated differently, not able to do many of the things the locals do.  If you desire to stick out, well, that says a lot about you.  If you are able to blend in it also says something else about you—that you are a chameleon, able to adapt to any situation and circumstance and your exterior is fluid.  It is something you use and understand but aren't ruled by it.  If donning another's garb will give you insight or the ability to walk the streets without calling attention to yourself, then you're demonstrating that you care more about what is inside of yourself, and aren't flustered by a change in the exterior.  It's all about not wanting to call attention to your exterior so you're not acting like a posterior.

When in Rome… do as the Romans do.

Identity

2005-12-31T11:07:00.000-08:00

Identity:  The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.

It's really all about symbolism in a form of modern tribalism.  Where the old Scots used to wear Tartan patterns to declare their tribe, today we have tattoos, advertising on our T-shirts, bumper stickers, and haircuts.

But there has to be more to life than showing an allegiance to a clique.

There's a great slogan that gets my point across:

WE are Individuals.

It makes me laugh (out loud) every time I hear it.  The definition of irony all rolled up into what is wrong with the world.

Identity, in the grand sense, isn't about packaging.  Someone with a strong identity doesn't find it necessary to express it outwardly.  The kind of confidence a strong identity garners means that they can wear anything, and not be in allegiance with any group, and be individuals. In the I sense, not the We sense.  True individuals don't wear the latest fashions or hairstyles as that is Group Think, not individual expression.  They're beyond Group Think.  They don't care what other people think of them.

One of the great memes of science has been "no two snowflakes are alike."  I think most of us have heard that so many times we forget when we first heard it.  What folks may not have discovered, however, it is that is wrong.

Within the small space that is a snowflake, there are a limited (although a huge) number of possible combinations.  Many snowflakes are alike.  Add up the number of snowflakes that have fallen, through all the millions of years they've fallen, and you can determine (within the limited scope of their size and complexity) just how many snowflakes have fallen that are alike.  Because of their small size, there are only so many permutations available.

With all the millions of people on the earth at one time, it is logical to conclude (also) that two people may be very much alike.  That two individuals who may not look alike, may actually think alike, with much the same preferences in clothing, art, music, literature, and politics.  Even with thinking then, within the limited confines of what is knowable; people can share ideas and not be intentionally group like.

When we talk of being individuals then, very often we're confusing it with the concept of uniqueness, of being different (wholly different) than another human being.  Much of what appears as individualism is nothing like it in the slightest.  It manifests in cliques and collectivism.  It manifests thusly:

WE are unique because we dress like anarchists.  But what we really are is group-think anarchists.

WE are unique because we don't like popular music.  Because we refuse to accept another's right to individual choices as being valid, good or bad.

WE are unique because we dress like Goths not Preppies (or whatever the modern equivalent is today).  But we band together like seals, attempting to dress outrageously (in expensive designer Goth fashions that our preppie parents pay for) because we don't want to give the appearance of fitting in with the majority, but fitting in with the minority is cool.

This has always been an issue for young people.  Feeling included, yet wanting to leave a unique mark on the world.  My Footprint Is Here is idealistic.  Without taking away or disparaging idealism because it is a great motivator to success and maintains optimism, it isn't very practical or realistic and it isn't even important when you get older and acquire a little wisdom.  Optimism is eventually replaced by wisdom.

I've often wanted to conduct a social experiment.  I want to take a group of about 100 socialist-leaning, tattooed, hemp-shirt-wearing young people through an experiment.

Here's how it would be done:

We find 100 people that are about the same size of men and women.  They have about the same color of skin and all have the same eye color.  It wouldn't be difficult as there is a huge pool from which to select people.

Their hair would all be shaved (or styled and colored alike).  They'd all be given the exact same clothing and the exact same soap, deodorant, and shampoo to use.  The clothing would be of the generic type (something off the shelves at JC Penny, such as plaid shirts and polyester, elastic waist slacks).  They'd live in the exact same type of apartments, in a kind of ward environment, with the exact same functional, but not stylish furnishings.  In other words, everything outward would be the same as would be generically devoid of style.

It may sound strange, but that is exactly what they are advocating.  That's where socialism leads, making all people "the same."  Letting them live in it for a while seems appropriate.  Who am I to deny people want they want?

Then I'd give them all a simple goal:

Be unique (express your individualism).

I can't remember who said it, but there was a woman who once remarked that she loved going to formal occasions where all the men are wearing tuxedos.  With all the normal unique attire (colors of shirts, suit styles, etc.) removed from the equation, when all men were dressed identically, what you were really able to see was the person.  In the sameness you could see the man.  Truly remarkable men (not in appearance terms) stood out from the crowd.

I would imagine, or my hypothesis of the social experiment, is that very few would be able to accomplish being unique or could find anyway to express themselves.  Because once you remove all the external cosmetics, the adornments and affectations, what you're left with is what's inside—what they think, what the know, how they express themselves, and how they persuade.  Most of these folks are empty vessels, soulless individuals finding camaraderie in being ostentatious, with really bizarre and outrageous packaging.

I think most of them would go mad and never recover from it, finding that their ideas of expressions and uniqueness were actually a fad, a façade and a farce.  They're nothing more than clowns and were it not for the group-think acceptance of others in their soulless cliques, they'd never get a date.

One of the reasons that societies have dressed children in school uniforms and strictly controlled their behavior is the recognition that children will be resistant to developing their intellect and abilities if they are allowed to develop them outwardly, instead of inwardly.  They become shells of human beings.  It's so much easier to tattoo your body than it is to expand your mind.  When children are forced to become interesting internally because there is no other option available to them to express themselves, they will do so.  So, too, with behavior.  If there is conformity in acceptable behavior then expressions must become mental hurdles.

Tearing down social conformity just enables outward conformity of a different variety.  Western civilization left tribalism behind in the 16th century.  Unfortunately, some people didn't get the memo or were incapable of reading it.

What they fail to realize today, however, is that we already know all this about them.  Even without the experiment of similar attire and style.  There is nothing unique about them at all.  They are nothing more than drones (although colorful), trying to feel significant through the acceptance of others, rather than acceptance and development of themselves and their minds.

24 and Counting

2005-12-24T13:25:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas!

10 Percentage Points for Voting

2005-12-22T23:01:00.000-08:00

Inspired by posts over at Og, Baby Troll Blog, and Smallest Minority, what about this:

If you decide not to vote in the next election, which is your choice, the rest of us are going to vote on a tax measure. If you vote you pay 10% less on your next tax bill. If you don't vote, you don't get the deduction.

Transit Strike

2005-12-21T19:02:00.000-08:00

Fire strikers.
Put union leaders in jail.
Hire new workers at 50% of current pay.
Hire .10 workers per driver to clean the transit system (buses, trains, stations).
Suspend transit fares until 2006 to apologize to public for being idiots.
Media stops showing whining New Yorkers having to get to work by a method other than rapid transit.

Restoring Faith

2005-12-18T02:13:00.000-08:00

From the "Search for Intelligent Life" files, The Passing Parade has been added to the blogroll.

I'd recommend that you go there now, but it being the Holiday season and all, you're probably really busy and it would be a bad idea to visit.

If you go there chances are very good that you'll spend a great deal of time reading the archives, then re-reading posts that are now your favorites. Next thing you know Christmas will be upon you, you won't have completed all your preparations, and it will all be the fault of recommending that you go to the site.

So don't go there. It is far too risky. Christmas is at stake.

Comedy or Tragedy

2005-12-16T18:31:00.000-08:00

A group of police officers in California were suspended for making a film (on their own time) that was supposed to be a funny way to let off steam at a party.

They were suspended because they were "insensitive" to the various races and women.  They were later unsuspended because they were denied due process.

They, supposedly, violated the rights of the citizens of California by exercising a sense of humor, however dark or insensitive it may have been, which appears to be illegal in California.  (Recent films produced in California would seem to confirm this new rule.)

If government employees can be suspended for expressing themselves when not on duty, then the First Amendment no longer applies in California.  Good.  Let's shut down Hollywood.

The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect your right to express yourself, even if it is vile, rude, offensive, ugly, or "insensitive."

The infamous discrimination lawyer Alioto said on Fox News that the police officers actions were an affront against "black people" of San Francisco who were the victims of the police officers' actions.

Last I looked, an anonymous group had no rights.  Individuals have individual rights, not collective rights.  Of course, explaining this to someone like Alioto would be difficult, in the extreme, she being so fond of collectives.

The fact that this is happening in "express yourself" California is just so far off the irony meter, it's impossible to mention it without laughing.

It is essentially an offense justifying suspension, firing, and penalties and fines for telling an off-color joke in California.

Tragedy has been said to be the other side of the comedy coin.  This confirms it.

Length

2005-12-16T18:12:00.000-08:00

My posts are too long. I'd elaborate, but that would be redundant.

Wow

2005-12-13T12:24:00.000-08:00

I don't get over to FrontPage Magazine as often as I should, but in catching up on David Horowitz's blog, I found this (astonishing) post about David's visit to the Whitehouse for a Hanukkah party, and an exchange between David Horowitz and the President:

I hadn't been at an event with the President (who is looking slim and trim) in four years and didn't know if he would recognize me. But the minute he saw, me in the line he called out "Horowitz" with a big smile on his face, then embraced me in a bear hug. In the moment I had his ear I said, "Thank you for taking all those arrows for the rest of us." Graciously, he said "You take more than I do," which I don't and said so. Then as I was walking away he called out, "Don't let them get to you." I called back, "Don't you either," and he replied in a strong voice. "I won't."

Yowza.

With all the flack the president has endured in the last couple of years I find it remarkable that he thinks that people like Horowitz need more encouragement and support than he does.

And that's the thing that it is so damn interesting about Bush, despite his irregular performance on domestic issues, the man has balls. And a conscience.

What a wonderful combination in a President. It's too bad a lot of people miss it because they'd likely take comfort in knowing that a good man with courage and compassion is leading the Freest Nation in the World, and leading a war to bring those same opportunities to the Middle East.

Beefing up the confidence and circumstance of others seems to be what he's best at. That, and surprising everyone with his competence.

Must Read

2005-12-12T11:46:00.000-08:00

Prodded by Baby Trollblog, I did read the whole thing.

And how, by the same token, could talk of this kind fail to give new heart to the Islamofascist terrorists—just when they are on the run? How could they not be delighted to see the elected representatives of the American people carrying on a heated debate in which the only questions at issue are how quickly to bug out of Iraq, and whether to fix a timetable and a deadline? How could they not feel vindicated when, after being surprised by the fierce reaction of the Americans to 9/11, they now behold fresh evidence for believing that Osama bin Laden was right after all when he called us a paper tiger?

On the other hand, if (as the President intended all along, as he reiterated in his great speech of November 30 at Annapolis, and as is prescribed in the recently declassified “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”) American forces are drawn down only at the rate and to the extent that they can be replaced with similar numbers of Iraqi soldiers and policemen fully capable of taking over, the joy now being felt by the Islamofascists will commensurately be replaced by dread. For no one knows better than they that, once up to snuff and on their own, the new Iraqi forces will be less inhibited than the Americans by moral considerations and accordingly much more ruthless in the way they fight.

What would Tom Paine think of these people who would base their policies and opinions not on what was good for America, Iraq, or the Middle East, but on what small advantage it might give them in the next election?

Like, I am sure, many other believers in what this country has been trying to do in the Middle East and particularly in Iraq, I have found my thoughts returning in the past year to something that Tom Paine, writing at an especially dark moment of the American Revolution, said about such times. They are, he memorably wrote, “the times that try men’s souls,” the times in which “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” become so disheartened that they “shrink from the service of [their] country.”

But Paine did not limit his anguished derision to former supporters of the American War of Independence whose courage was failing because things had not been going as well on the battlefield as they had expected or hoped. In a less famous passage, he also let loose on another group:

’Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. . . . Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses . . . . [T]heir peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain for ever undiscovered.

Thus, he explained, “Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head,” emboldened by the circumstances of the moment to reveal an opposition to the break with Britain that it had previously seemed prudent to conceal.

The similarities to our situation today are uncanny. We, too, are in the midst of a rapidly spreading panic. We, too, have our sunshine patriots and summer soldiers, in the form of people who initially supported the invasion of Iraq—and the Bush Doctrine from which it followed—but who are now abandoning what they have decided is a sinking ship. And we, too, are seeing formerly disguised opponents of the war coming more and more out into the open, and in ever greater numbers.

Yet in spite of these similarities, there is also a very curious difference between the American panic of 1776-7 and the American panic of 2005-6. To put it in the simplest and starkest terms: in that early stage of the Revolutionary War, there was sound reason to fear that the British would succeed in routing Washington’s forces. In Iraq today, however, and in the Middle East as a whole, a successful outcome is staring us in the face. Clearly, then, the panic over Iraq—which expresses itself in increasingly frenzied calls for the withdrawal of our forces—cannot have been caused by the prospect of defeat. On the contrary, my twofold guess is that the real fear behind it is not that we are losing but that we are winning, and that what has catalyzed this fear into a genuine panic is the realization that the chances of pulling off the proverbial feat of snatching an American defeat from the jaws of victory are rapidly running out.

What these naysayers are doing is giving us the opportunity to shine a light brightly upon them. To recognize them for their baseless grasps at power. Not for power to lead a great, powerful, and prosperous America, but one which needs their rule in other to prove to ourselves just how evil, vile, and what utter failures we are.

I, as Tom Paine did so much more elegantly than I, reject them and all who support them through their indifference or their ignorance.

Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but "show your faith by your works," that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.

There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. Howe's first object is, partly by threats and partly by promises, to terrify or seduce the people to deliver up their arms and receive mercy.

Thomas Paine, 1780, The American Crisis

The Magic Shield™

2005-12-09T11:35:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time, there was a happy people who settled in a vast and prosperous land.  They chose just leaders and most of the people participated in all the affairs and chores of their communities.  Since ordinary life required hard work, the people were busy with their daily lives, and had no time to intrude into the lives of others.

After a time, life got easy.  Most of the people had lots of free time and rather than concentrate on their own affairs, they began to think about ways they could make life better for themselves, by making other people behave more like they wanted them to.

At first it was quite successful.  They would ask their leaders to pass laws that the other villages had to follow.  They believed that laws were like a Magic Shield™ because as soon as they would pass a new law, people would stop doing whatever it was that had become unlawful. Being a lawful people, the other villages complied... at first.  As the laws grew more numerous and more intrusive, however, it became impossible for everyone to comply.  Even the smallest of things could lead to trouble so after a while the people of the surrounding villages just stopped trying.

But the people still believed in The Magic Shield™.  They'd busy themselves with passing more and more laws, thinking that (perhaps) the Magic Shield™ was becoming weak.  In order to combat the weakness they'd pass a dozen laws (where one had sufficed in the past), to reinforce the power of The Magic Shield™.

All sorts of bad things began to happen.  It almost seemed like the more laws they passed, no matter how good their intentions, they seemed to backfire.  They passed laws to make it illegal to do anything that could cause harm to anyone or anything.  They even went to so far as to make it illegal to offend anyone.  And who could argue against that?  No one would intentionally want to offend anyone!

They passed laws making it illegal to agree with anyone who disagreed with the laws.  They passed laws making it illegal to point out mistakes, and made laws making all mistakes unlawful, and all people who noticed the mistakes criminals.

Things went along this way for years and years, so long, in fact, that people forgot that there was a time when they had very few laws, and very few lawbreakers.  Since this could not have been right, they began rewriting the history books to correct them.

They began to be not so prosperous and not so happy, so they passed more laws.  But soon they found that the Magic Shield™ was so weak, that no matter how many laws they passed, no matter how many back up laws they passed, the laws were no longer obeyed.

The people set about to find someone who could help them solve their problems.  They sent out scouts to find a person who could solve this mystery and restore the power to The Magic Shield™.  Days passed with no response.  Weeks, then months, then years passed.  But one day, finally, a scout came into the village and promised that he had found a wise man who could help them.  The wise stranger would come to their village on the following day to help them solve their problems.

As promised on the following day a wise stranger came into the village and set about to know the people of the villages.  The people told the stranger of their problems and asked the wise stranger for help.  He told the people that he would have to think about it, to see if he could find a solution to their problem, and figure out how to restore powers of The Magic Shield™.

He told the people he would be gone for at least a fortnight and would return with a solution to their problem.

And the people waited.

As the wise stranger had promised, he returned after a fortnight and told the people he had found a solution to their problem.  It was so easy, he told them, that he almost missed the solution himself.  He told them that he had found a way to restore the power of The Magic Shield™ and it would once again make all the people law abiding and restore the peace and prosperity they had enjoyed in their long, long past.

Since this was an important matter, the people planned to hear the solution that evening.  They sent out calls to all the villages to come to hear the solution.  They planned a great feast to celebrate the event, and the people set about to prepare for the feast.

And a feast it was, too.  Everyone had worked incredibly hard, bringing their favorite foods and drink to the event.  Excitement was in the air, too, which seemed to make the event almost mysterious and mystical.  Upon completion of dessert, the people began to shout, "Solution!  Solution!  Solution!"

The wise stranger slowly stood to his feet, first thanking the people for the lovely feast.  He reminded them why he was there and told them that he had found a solution to their problem that would be so simple it could be in place tomorrow.

The solution, he told them, was to pass only one more law… The people gasped and held their breath, waiting to hear more.  The new law that would restore peace and prosperity to the land and make all the people law abiding again, was one law which read "There are no laws and it is unlawful to make laws."

The people at the celebration were aghast.  They began to wail and scream at the wise stranger.  "Imposter! Charlatan!" they shouted at him.  The people got angrier and angrier, shouting louder and louder and louder, until they set upon the wise stranger, and trampled him to death.

The next day they passed a new law, "It is now illegal to listen to wise strangers."

The End

Impossible

2005-12-09T10:52:00.000-08:00

If the only source of information available to someone is the news, it would be impossible for that individual to come to a reasonable judgment on any particular issue.  It is necessary to have more of the back story than the news media provides to see the holes or mistakes in logic.

In addition, if someone has been relying on the news media for several years, and believing the views presented during that entire time, it would be nearly impossible for that someone to change their mind on a issue, even if new information became available (i.e., the truth)—no matter how reliable or easy to understand the new information.  After several years of holding an opinion, reinforced by your peers and the passage of time, it would be extremely difficult (near impossible) to reason that you had been wrong, and terribly wrong, all along.  You'd also have to believe that your friends were wrong (stupid) or knew it was incorrect (and were deceitful).

The reason this is so successful is because of our egos and our egos are the reason that brain washing can be successful.

Brain washing involves three steps:

Be welcoming and inviting ("We like you and think you are special!")

Challenge preconceived notions ("We'd like you better if you weren't so horribly wrong.")

Proselytize ("Come join this wonderful group!")

Brain washing is not complete until the final step has been completed.  Once someone has convinced others of the soundness of the opinions and the delights of being a member of their group, it is impossible for that person to ever see the error of their ways.  To do so would require that they go back to every person they spoke to and tell them they were wrong.  Our egos don't allow us to do that.

Religions have been extremely successful in this process.  The Mormons, for example, require the third step once a child has barely reached maturity.  They require a year of proselytizing, giving the people a kind of superior status, referring to them as "Elders."  Once that year is over, they've got them—permanently.

And so it goes with politics.  While someone is living in a region where their views (no matter how faulty the premises or weak the supporting evidence) are constantly reinforced, where they manage to convince others with their thin facts, they are no longer convertible.  They will need to deny the truth, no matter how hard it slaps them across the face.

Write them off.

A Weapon By Any Other Name

2005-12-03T19:46:00.000-08:00

Back in the 1970s one of the tools women were taught to wield, to fend off rapists, were car keys.  The keys were to be held like a kind of short stick or very blunt knife.  The objective was not necessarily to protect the women from an assault, but to give her the appearance of being prepared to defend herself.

If we were to go through the archives of what objects people have used as weapons, I'd guess that anything hard or pointed would work.  This would include car keys, flash lights, coat hangers, lamps, laptop computers, rocks, work boots, spiked heels, canes, umbrellas, glass bottles, cans, magazines, and belt buckles.

If we move to other methods of killing, we get into the more eclectic mix, such as strangulation.  In that arena, the tool supply is endless:  shoe laces, belts, jewelry, key chains, panty hose, and luggage straps.  In the realm of suffocation just about anything will do the job, including socks, duct tape, and plastic and vinyl bags.  In the realm of just maiming someone, a Bic pen to the eye should accomplish the task quite nicely.

I note, with a degree of cynicism and sarcasm, that not one of the above items was banned from carry on luggage after 9/11, when objects such as toenail clippers, manicure scissors, and knitting needles were.

The most interesting thing is that the TSA has now removed a few of the items from the deadly list and we can now return to thinking of them as harmless office, hobby, and beauty products.

We're told that the flight attendants' union is up in arms about this.  They are supposedly upset that the TSA doesn't care about their safety.

Unless the TSA demanded that we board flights both naked and empty handed, someone is going to get a weapon onboard.  Just about everything could be used as a deadly weapon, besides cotton candy.

These people really need to get over themselves (and get a clue).

If someone intends to hurt you with a weapon, they are going to do that, no matter what you ban or consider dangerous.

And there are no "but… but… but…" allowed on the comments on this post.  If you really think that you are safe because someone can't take manicure scissors on an airplane, but we are safe if they are wearing a 4" x 3" quarter inch thick belt buckle with a leather strap, you are delusional.

Punishment/Reformation and Redemption

2005-12-02T10:33:00.000-08:00

[In this post I will use religious vernacular to describe concepts.  These references may be substituted with secular vernacular and achieve the same purpose, but for the purpose of clarify and brevity I will use one and not the other.]

There has been much debate in the blogosphere and the mainstream media about the case of Stanley “Tookie” Williams.  Tookie Williams was the person who created one of the largest and well known street gangs.  He was convicted for murdering 4 people in 1979.  The problem with many of these debates has been the conflation of two strains of thought: Punishment and Redemption.  This conflation has a tendency to distract from the, often biased, central arguments.

Punishment/Reformation Aspect
The debate began before this case and will continue in perpetuity, but there are two ways to view the criminal justice system, specifically the incarceration of those found guilty of a crime:  Punishment or Reformation.

A person may hold one of three general opinions with respect to the purpose of incarceration:

The purpose of incarceration is to punish the criminal for their actions.

The purpose of incarceration is to reform the individual (through programs and a time of reflection created by the isolation from the general public) so they can be released back into society with a reasonable degree of confidence that they will not commit another crime.

Both of the above.

If we believe that an individual is dangerous (likely to commit the same or similar crime again), it leads us to a fourth purpose for incarceration:  to segregate individuals who are incapable of reforming from the general public.  However, if we believe that an individual is incapable of reforming or believe it is the intended goal of incarceration to repair that individual, it is inconsistent with that concept to set an arbitrary time period in which they will be incarcerated.  "Until they are reformed" would be a legitimate sentence.  For reasons far too complicated (and outside the scope of this piece), the public has opted for a fixed sentence in which in the individual is expected to reform, before being released back into the general public.

Capital Crimes/Death Penalty Offenses vs Other Crimes
Society has determined that there are a few crimes which rise to a higher level of consequence.  These crimes are so severe, and so potentially destructive to society that the acts are treated in an entirely different manner than ordinary crimes.  First degree murder is one of those special cases.  The act is considered so heinous that the only reasonable response from society is to put the person to death.  It sends the signal "this act cannot and will not be tolerated."

What is important to recognize is that the sentence of death is not a value judgment on the individual who has committed the crime.  It is not a predictor of their potential for future criminal activity.  In other words, it doesn't matter if they could be reformed or are a continuing danger to the general public; rather, crimes that rise to this level have the consequence of the severest kind:  death.  The sentence of death is neither a punishment nor an act of reforming the individual.  It is simply the consequence, the reaction and response, to a specific action.

Some may argue that there are legitimate reasons to kill someone with general protection of society arguments, including statements that the individual may kill other prisoners and why should reformable prisoners live with this risk, or similar.  These are modern arguments in support of the death penalty.  The ancient and historical reason for the death penalty is much simpler:  Murder and you will be killed.

It is the strongest and clearest message society can send to those who may consider an act of murder:  It will not be tolerated and you will be destroyed if you cross that line.  It is the ultimate reaction to the ultimate action.

Since the act of putting someone to death is wholly irreversible, society has placed many safeguards in the process to protect the wrongfully convicted.  As in the case of Tookie Williams, he is 27 years after the original crime nearling his execution date.  During those decades in prison he had the opportunity for multiple appeals.  In death penalty cases, reforming the prisoner is irrelevant.  He is not going to be released back into the general population so if he continues to be a danger or is a danger to society is moot.  What a prisoner also has time for, during the long span of time from conviction to execution, is redemption.

Redemption
First and foremost is it important to qualify that redemption is not reformation.  Redemption is the healing of one's soul, not altering his behavior.  It is a series of actions and decisions between the individual and God, not the individual and society.  It is a type of repentance.  Society has no business inserting itself between an individual and God.  It is a violation of Christian tenets, for example, for one individual to judge another.  Only God may judge.

The semantics of this can get a bit confusing, so please bear with me.

The word "judge" has both a religious and secular connotation and use that may be one of the many reasons why this line of argument is confusing.  A jury judges the evidence to determine if an individual is guilty or innocent of the crimes they have been accused of.  They are not judging the man. The jury is not determining if the accused shall be admitted into the gates of Heaven.  The jury, in the case of a Capital Crime, may determine if the person is put to death, but what happens after is between the condemned and God.  God may decide to grant forgiveness, based on whatever factors He uses.  He may forgive the sins and allow the individual into Heaven.  He may also deny the individual forgiveness and cast him to Purgatory (or Hell).  But all of that, the after-death results, have nothing to do with the death itself, or the carry out of the sentence of death.

Put simply:  A jury judges the evidence and determines if the person is guilty or innocent of deed(s).  The jury is not judging the man.  Only God judges the man.

Therefore, much of the confusion of the Tookie Williams case involves this confusion between judging the man and the carry through of the punishment imposed on him by the courts for his deeds.

The Founders were quite specific about this wall* between the state and the individual.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson

It is quite clear that society precluded the government and itself from judging the soul of an individual.  This means that society may not weigh the merits or the lack of merit of an individual when determining if they should carry out punishment or grant parole.  We are only concerned with a man's deeds.  And for his deeds, and only his deeds, a man may be put to death.

This does not mean, however, that the individual may not take actions, while in the period of waiting for his execution, which he believes will repair his relationship with God.  And that has been where much of the debate about Tookie Williams has been:  confusing the issue of his redemption and consequences for his action.

Summation
If Tookie Williams' sentence is carried out on December 13 (or later) it will not be because of the man he is or if he will be forgiven and allowed entrance into Heaven.  He will be executed because 27 years ago a jury found him guilty of a Capital Crime.  He may have done many things since that time to redeem himself and repair his soul (writing children's books, preaching non-violence, guiding others away from the path he chose).  If he has worked to obtain a Get Out Of Hell Free Card that is between him and God, not society and God, and not society and Tookie.  While his soul may be redeemable and his sins forgivable, the crimes he committed are irreversible.  Unless Tookie Williams can bring back the dead, there is no reason for society to consider overturning his conviction and fail to carry out his execution.

*The Wall has been greatly misunderstood and wrongly interpreted to mean that the state must prevent all public displays of religion as often referenced with the phrase, "The Separation of Church and State." The Wall, as originally articulated by Jefferson, describes a kind of special recognition of an individual's conscience and soul that was not to be intruded upon by The People or the legislatures by forbidding both the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
--Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

Dupes and Disappointment

2005-11-30T07:41:00.000-08:00

As I write this the President of the United States is once again on the public stage explaining the strategy and the plan in the Global War on Terrorism. He does this because the opinion polls continually show that the American people are not satisfied with his handling of the war.

For over two years the public stage has been filled with liars and scoundrels determined to undermine the war, and the Republicans in general, not because they want America to succeed, but because they have a lust for power that knows no bounds and has no conscience.

For over two years we've all heard the memes:

There was no plan
There was no exit strategy
There were no WMDs
Iraq invasion was a failed strategy
It's all about oil

And others.

When these memes entered the body politic most Americans didn't listen. They understood that the response to 9/11 was to pull our heads out of the sand and begin to fight against an enemy who had been achieving small victories all over the world for more than a dozen years.

This was a much more complicated conflict than past wars. It wasn't the good guys and the bad guys meeting on a battlefield to take Berlin, Tokyo, or Paris. This war would be different and it would require that people understand the enemy we face, his goals and ambitions and seek him out. There wouldn't be front lines in any conventional sense. There would be no geography taken. In simplest terms, the world had become infested with diseased rats and in order to eradicate the world of these pests we were going to have to rattle branches, stomp the group, and infiltrate their nests.

This enemy is not going to surrender. This enemy isn't going to do their time in prisoner of war camps and return to their home countries when the war was over. This enemy isn't a soldier. This enemy is a deranged serial killer. We will hold them in prison camps as long as they give us information and when we feel we've gotten enough information from them, we'll kill them.

And the memes continued on. Despite every attempt to educate the American people on the enemy we face, the American people began to lose their resolve or were incapable of showing any in the first place. This war wasn't playing out like the Frank Capra versions they grew up hearing about. War was supposed to make you feel proud and encouraged--that's the way war movies made you feel so if this wasn't engendering the same emotions "It must not be handled well!" This war has left many feeling hopeless and having to come to terms with the reality that some people are not worth saving--that some people are truly evil, despicable creatures, and bear no resemblance to human beings other than the shell of skin and human form.

The voice of doom and gloom has been successful. Like some sort of twisted version of Star Wars those who wish to regain power keep repeating their memes and their mantras with success. As the wise Obi Wan understood, "These are not the drones you are looking for," only worked on the weak minded. And, like the weak minded everywhere, "There is no exit strategy" worked on Americans. "The basis for the war, the WMDs, was wrong, therefore the entire war is wrong" is working.

The basis for the war in Iraq was not WMDs. If you thought that, you were wrong. WMDs was a small facet of the war in Iraq, not the main reason. The War in Iraq began because Saddam Hussein WOULD NOT COMPLY with the U.N. Resolutions and he was supporting and sponsoring terrorism.

Saddam Hussein was in Iraq operating under a cease fire agreement after Gulf War I. Those were the terms of surrender that the allied forces offered to Saddam and he took it. Those terms required that he comply with certain conditions. Those conditions were not met. U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution went ignored by Saddam. He threw out the weapons inspectors. His military fired on U.S. and British planes. He used the Oil for Food program to build palaces and to build up his military. After 12 years and more than a dozen NEW resolutions, he failed to comply. Time's up. Send in the troops.

The U.N. had two choices (and only two) against Saddam's refusal to comply with the terms of the agreement:

Release him from the terms of the agreement, giving him free reign in Iraq to resume whatever activities he was engaged in before the Gulf War (invading neighbor states, committing genocide on his own people).
Invade. In other words, FORCE him to comply with the resolutions by removing him from power.

In addition to Saddam's failure to comply with the cease fire agreements he was also sponsoring and supporting terrorists. Let's just be clear here: Saddam WAS SUPPORTING TERRORISTS. In that statement do not read in anything that suggests that Saddam Hussein planned and arranged the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. Nothing of the kind is in that statement. Saddam WAS supporting terrorists by giving them safe harbor (staging areas within Iraq to hide from authorities out to capture them) and giving money to families of suicide bombers in Palestine.

Given Saddam's history it would have been insanity, sheer LUNACY, to choose Door Number One. Releasing Saddam Hussein from the terms of surrender would have enabled him to once again build biological weapons, continue to pursue a nuclear strategy, and continue to support terrorists in Iraq and throughout the world.

The question Americans need to ask themselves is this, and only this: Do you want Saddam back in control of an unregulated and unmonitored Iraq?

If your answer to that is "Of Course Not!" then there is hope for you. If your answer is "Sure, hand the reigns of Iraq back over to Saddam" then you are either a fool or an enemy of free people and I WILL question your patriotism. I'll question your sanity, morality, and conscience, too.

That question was the same one that the U.N. dealt with over two years ago. THAT is why we invaded Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein, because to do otherwise was to set in motion the result that he would be in control of Iraq as he was before Gulf War I. If people forgot that question, and how they answered it back then, then they need to be reminded, ONE MORE TIME. But don't forget again. It's the job of the rest of us to keep people committed to do what is right. We're not your damn baby sitters or your psychiatrists. Answer the question above and then stick to your answer, don't keep shifting around like some sort of lunatic, changing your mind and your opinion more often than your underwear.

If the American people have lost their resolve then I pity them. You cannot be duped without willingness. You cannot miss the objectives and the explanations without complicity. You can guard yourself from being duped by continually educating yourself on the facts and refusing to listen to people whose motives have been clear from the start: Defeat George Bush and the Republicans regardless of the consequences to America, our military, or the world.

Yes, Americans have been disappointed that we have lost American soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere in the war. But disappointment that war is inevitable, that soldiers (and innocents) get caught in the cross fire of a war, is no reason to lose your resolve or to question the "strategy" and "plans" in Iraq. Personal disappointment and having to come to terms with the fact that the world isn't a Disney movie is just too damn bad. Get over it.

The plan is simple. The President has spelled it out so many times, it's impossible that anyone could accidently miss it: Continue to seek out the rats. Attempt to corner them so they can be eradicated more easily. Rebuild the military infrastructure of Iraq (that had 30 years of destruction under Saddam Hussein) so that the demoralized people of Iraq can assume control and defend themselves. Exit Iraq when that is accomplished.

That is so simple to understand. If people don't get it they have either been duped or are too stupid to understand anything.

The fate of the world is at stake. And that is in not an overstatement. If there are people in your midst who continue to assert that the President lied, that the War was all about Oil or WMDs, distance yourself from those people. They are the enemy or are too stupid to have around. You either join us in the war against terrorism or you are on the side of the terrorists. Choose. There is no middle ground.

Do you want Saddam back in control of an unregulated and unmonitored Iraq?

DECIDE and then stick to it.

Just in Case

2005-11-21T13:39:00.000-08:00

White Peril has an interesting post about Japan and defense. He ends the post with something that I want to say everyday, but am always looking for a new way to say it, so it doesn't get boring.

Sometimes simple is best, so here goes:

TO THE ALLIED FORCES IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN:

We believe in you. We think of you every day. Even those of us without family Over There. We, too, think of you every day. We appreciate what you're doing--marvel in it, actually. We know that you are making progress in the WoT every day. We know that you are getting closer to fulfilling your mission, every day.

We also know that the press is not good from here. But that's not your problem, that's ours. You have to remember that an election is coming up soon so there is a lot of pandering and whining to try to get a constituency for the election.

Don't let that be a distraction. Don't think that any of us have wavered in our support.

We support you.
We support your mission.
We support your officers.
We support the Commander and Chief.

You don't waver. Nor do we.

The Holidays are coming up and it's likely your thoughts will stray and think of home. You'll think about what you're missing by not being home for Thanksgiving, Christmas, or whatever Holiday you celebrate. Just know that we'll be sending those thoughts back and that on Thanksgiving Day, when millions of us sit down to our dinners, the first thing that we'll be remembering to be thankful for is you. We'll remember that we sit down at our tables, in peace and prosperity, because of you. Thanksgiving is all about giving thanks and you're it, buddy.

While it isn't roast turkey and all the trimmings and you'll not have the full bellies you're accustomed to on Thanksgiving, just know that your hearts, pride and souls will be fed by the loving, supportive, and appreciative folks back home.

Wind Direction

2005-11-21T07:10:00.000-08:00

The recent shunning of Al Zarqawi is one of the first signs that the direction is changing in the War on Terror.

It was inevitable that the terrorists would make a mistake, creating an incident that would enable Muslims to see that terrorism affects Muslims more than any other group. They're killing themselves, but that has always been the case. There are great divides in the Muslim world (a fact that I've been beating my head against the wall trying to get people in the U.S. to understand). Factions have been waring with factions, not "The Great Satan."

Thousand of people took to the streets to condemn Al Zarqawi. No longer is his cause viewed as a noble one. This will make terrorist recruitment more difficult. It will also mean that anyone who associates with Al Zarqawi will no longer be treated as a hero back home.

This is all good.

Too much information and too little

2005-11-16T22:40:00.000-08:00

The continued blogging black-out here has more to do with the number of issues rather than any personal or work limitation. I simply cannot decide which one to focus on. It is similar to a white paper writer's block, only the paper is covered with black ink. Instead, I'll focus on a fluffy topic:

What in the hell is Open Source Media?

I've been to their site a number of times (before and after the name change from Pajama Media, which was at least a name you could remember). Nothing on their site says what it is. Will this end up being a group blog, ie, a single portal whereby the members will blog from now on? Is it merely a label that will appear under ads appearing on the member blogs?

And the fact that bloggers got together and decided to either blog in the same place or share advertisers is a media event, requiring some sort of press event?

This entire discussion makes me a little queasy.

There are a number of bloggers who are aspiring or wannabee journalists. That's understandable and perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, what some of these folks do not understand is that the rest of us are not interested in those things. Even more repellent is the idea of a formalized "blog clique." The informal ones are bad enough.

So discussions about "standards" and "journalist professionalism" leaves me cold. It would be like unemployed actors getting together to form an actors club, with discussions about acting "standards" and "acting professionalism." So, can you act? If no one wanted to hire you before, why will they want to hire you if you get a few big and employable actors to hang out with the rest of you?

That's the point about blogging. Can you write? Do you have an interesting view of things? Do you write in a manner that makes me want to read you (more than once)? If not, the advertising revenue of the collective will not be any greater than the aggregate of its individual parts, nor will the quality of the writing exceed its equivalent today. I think the phrase "Garbage In. Garbage Out" needs to be stamped on the foreheads of a few folks.

You will not gain legitimacy by creating a cluster. A cluster-$#@% is all you'll have.

Be careful, OSM members. Your association with this organization will not change anything (except perhaps your reputations).

Blogging is a hobby. Any attempts to make it more than that will move it from the blogging realm to something else. There are professional journos. What will your cluster have/do that they aren't already providing? If you can't answer that- If you can't explain what you are and what your goals are on the website- why should we care about anything else that is written by the group?

Train wreck. Slow motion. Stand clear.

I'll try to write about something more important tomorrow.

Blog Pardon

2005-11-05T08:39:00.000-08:00

Work projects and illness have interfered and will continue to do so until after November 8.

Consistency

2005-10-28T10:07:00.000-07:00

So Scooter Libby has been indicted on five counts. Testifying to the Grand Jury that he learned from reporters that Plame worked for the CIA didn't stand up when confronted with a fax from the CIA stating who she was and for which department she worked.

Perhaps he didn't see the fax?

It's possible, but not likely.

These investigations are horrid. It's difficult to determine if they do us any good, but eliminating them would do no good either.

Many years ago a soldier in a pressed uniform, giving all appearances of someone in Frank Capra movie, gave testimony before Congress. He lied. The second time he appeared he was given immunity. Wearing the uniform of the U.S. military he described in shining detail how he lied to Congress and was involved in the mismanagement of funds. His name was Oliver North. Later attempts to charge him through evidence not obtained in his Congressional testimony failed. He dishonored the uniform and to this day should be spat upon for what he did. But he walks free and hosts a weekly program on Fox News. Decent people should change the channel whenever he appears.

Less than a decade ago President Clinton committed perjury before a court hearing on a matter. He was impeached but not removed from office. He, too, was not prosecuted and served no prison time for his offenses. He, too, should be spat upon and when he appears on television, decent people should change the channel.

And so it goes with Scooter Libby. If you lie you have dishonored yourself and all of us.

It's cruel. It's probably a litmus test that is far too high. The cost and risks for public service may be too great, but the alternatives are no better.

We are a nation of laws. Obey them.

Hypothetical

2005-10-27T12:30:00.000-07:00

There is a great deal of confusion about why the Republicans were not willing to support the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Most Democrats believe her nomination was thwarted by "The Religious Right" who were not sufficiently convinced she'd make the right decision with respect to their issues. Fox News correspondents seemed to get some of it, but it is pervasive problem that plagues the party.

To try to explain it it's necessary to step outside the issue for a moment.

Bill O'Reilly has a program and message that is popular. Sometimes he focuses on issues that cross party lines. For example, he's been spending a great deal of time on the revolving door treatment of sex offenders. More often, however, he focuses on issues that are closer to the right than the left.

The problem with O'Reilly, and why he's a hack instead of any great thinker, is that he bases his opinions and decisions on his feelings towards an issue. He could, just as easily, take a side on an issue that would be consistent with the Left, purely because it is what he feeeeels is correct. He's not interested in being right or presenting a persuasive argument based on anything besides what he thinks. His arguments are based on anecdotal evidence and feelings. We have a Constitution and a system of government, Mr. O'Reilly. We make our decisions based on that, not our feelings. We are a nation of laws and contracts. Deal with it and get with the program.

Harriet Miers has had a mixed career. She practiced law and served briefly in Texas public service (on the lottery commission, for example). She isn't a fine jurist who has written extensively on her opinions so Americans had a right to want to know more about her in guiding how their representatives voted on the matter. We know that she gave money to a democrat. We know that she took other actions to help her win an election.

When the public was concerned about the Miers nomination, Bush's response was, "Trust me. She's been a trusted servant of my administration."

See, even President Bush doesn’t get it.

Sorry, Mr. President, that's not good enough. It's not that we don't trust YOU, Mr. President, it's that we don't trust government. PERIOD. Our job, our responsibility as a citizen is to make sure. Your word isn't good enough.

To make matters worse, when confronted on where she stood on issues regarding her judicial philosophy, Bush said she was an "Evangelical Christian." And that was supposed to mean what? That she'd base her decisions on that? I certainly hope not.

And that's the part that one of the Fox News correspondents got, that a lot of people (especially the Democrats) will refuse to accept:

We want to win in a fair fight. We want to win or lose cases regarding Roe v Wade, Immigration, Property Seizure, the War on Drugs, Racial Profiling, or Affirmative Action not by feeeeeeeeeling. We want to win because we're on the correct side of the law and the interpretation of the decision, because our founding documents and our laws are consistent with our opinions.

If the people feeeeeeeeel that something should be decided contrary to our Constitution, then we'll CHANGE the damn thing through the legal and articulated process for amending it, but until The People go through that process the ONLY source we want the Court to refer to is the Constitution.

So, Mr. President, when you suggested that we should trust your judgment and Harriet Miers because she was an "Evangelical Christian" you scared the crap out of us. If your "judgment" is that her faith is her guiding principle, rather than the Constitution, you just flipped the coin of the types of liberal activism we've been suffering through with the Left. It's activism of another kind. What we want, Mr. President is NO activism. We don't want the Left kind OR the Right kind. We want the decisions that come before the Supreme Court to be decided on correctly interpreting the Constitution (and previous decisions, if wanting, be damned).

We have a contract with the government. That contract is the Constitution. We recognize no other authority over us as Americans. We've been pretty cooperative up until now. We've put up with quite a few infringments on the contract. We're not asking for special treatment or to have a shill on the court, voting the way they might think we want them to. We want what is right and articulated--no more, no less.

Choose better next time and select a nominee who will do what the Oath of Supreme Court Justice requires:

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice
without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties
incumbent upon me as Justice of the Supreme Court, under the Constitution and
laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Yes, Virginia. There is a God.

2005-10-20T08:51:00.000-07:00

Most are familiar with the story. In short (and for those who wish not to click on the link of the source), the editor of the New York Sun responded to a letter from Virginia O'Hanlon. She asked the editor of The Sun, Francis P. Church, if there was a Santa Claus and he responded.

The letter was published in 1897. Given that 100+ years has passed since then, it is an interesting intellectual exercise to consider if an editor of the The Sun, or the like, would be as generous today.

And there was a time when adults of all stripes and persuasions kept the conspiracy going. Only cruel and heartless children on the playground could hope to escape the wrath of spilling the secret. Today, it isn't children who attempt to give away the secret. "Church Lied. People Died" might be more along the lines of what we'd see today.

Today the newspapers place scare quotes around the religious practices of individuals. Harriet Miers is both loved and feared because of her status as an "Evangelical Christian." Mentioning Santa Claus in the public square can result in a lawsuit. A Christmas tree in a company's reception area can result in punitive damages.

In many halls there are individuals who have great difficulty with "the religious" hoping, we can only assume, that people would just grow out of it, as children do of their belief in Santa. Religion, to many, is nothing more than a phase, and a belief in God is something to be concerned about. Concerned that there must be something wrong with people who still believe in such things.

To quote Mr. Church:

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Apply the above to those who wish to take away an individual's belief in God or find fault with it—to those who believe the opinions in such matters is something that should be hidden, kept away from the public square, lest those who see its idolatry or hear its phrases be affected by it, and become corrupted. It is as if religious texts and icons should come in brown wrapper so as not to taint those who might come into contact with it.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, attempting to take away another's God, by rational discourse or legislation, is just as sinister and cruel as it is to take away a child's belief in Santa, to steal her dolly, or pick pocket a man's talisman. It is attempted theft of the grandest sort.

It is a sentimental view, this belief in a God or Santa, but none of that matters. It is what gets many through the day. It is what oils the rusty machine of an individual's life who has had wrenches thrown into their works. If a belief in God makes a person happier and gives them the courage and strength to get through another day, who dare try to take it from them?

He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

The irony is that those who believe in fairytales, Santa Claus, and God, are the same people who carry the faith that the cynical editors of newspapers, ACLU lawyers, and men in the halls of academia will see the light. They have hope that they will see the error of their ways and allow others to live and let live. Without that hope, we'd have to eliminate them for their intolerance and subversion of our religious freedom. They should be glad these people believe. Taking it away would be counter productive.

Inspired by Offense at BabyTroll Blog.

The Day the Movies Died

2005-10-19T07:47:00.000-07:00

The box office continues to decline. Hollywood doesn't know why. In their usual panic and closed community they will retreat to the familiar, remaking successful films and formulas. This time, however, it won't help because Hollywood itself is the problem.

During the studio system of Hollywood's heyday, the studios controlled an actor's image. We know the all too well the slippery slope of this type of control with Francis Farmer, but it wasn't all like that. Mostly, actors are irresponsible types who get themselves in all sorts of trouble. The studios kept the images clean and were the ready-set-go PR arm of the industry, ready to swarm in and put a spin on an actor's misdeeds.

As the last remnants of the industry fell away, the old myths and knowledge of the fickle public were well understood by those who continued to grace the silver screen. As those old timers died off, so did the knowledge of the relationship between the box office and the public's acceptance of the films the actors make. Any press is good press only works in the moderate. Eventually, people will turn it off.

In the studio system there were two branches: the business side of the house (the studio moguls and their staff) and the creative folks (actors, writers, cinematographers, etc.). It was well understood that the creative types were not interested in focusing on the business in show business. They were only interested in the show. This doesn't make for good box office as it's much too selfish and self-centered.

What's more important and interesting is how Hollywood as an entity ended up the way it did. Why are Hollywood types such easy marks as Useful Idiots and how can reasonably intelligent people swallow the BS as they do? How could, for example, Hollywood believe that the film Day After Tomorrow (based on the extremely biased premise that Global Warming is real in any sense of the imagination) cause anything other than shame and mockery on the industry that made it?

This exchange explains it best:

Director: We want to make Richard III.
Studio Mogul: How did Richard II do?

Within the old circles, there were dire warnings about taking yourself too seriously. The quote (source unknown), "Don't believe your own press releases" said it all.

It is important to understand that Hollywood is a concept, not a reality. Its loosely-aligned members live all over Los Angeles, and all over the country. They do, however, travel in a relatively small circle. If not the actors, the writers they use the most believe in their own PR. As an industry it is risk averse, despite PR attempts to convey otherwise. It is also made up of relative idiots, as compared to the intelligence and literary savvy of the rest of the country.

Hollywood, unfortunately, started believing in its own releases, and believes it to the exclusion of all truth. This Emperor has no clothes, but he is convinced otherwise (and believes it's a designer fashion). Who is willing to tell Sean Penn that he's a naked idiot, making a complete fool of himself, and angering John Q Public in the process? The public tells him. They tell him by not going to his films. But they aren't getting the message.

And that is where we can find the core reason why Hollywood is dying and will continue to die a slow and painful death over the next 20 years—to the gradual extinction of the remaining movie lots in the vicinities around Los Angeles: They believe in fairytales and they think they can make a difference. They believe they are the characters they portray. But more importantly, they think that making a difference is why they make movies. They've forgotten that they're just actors. They're not real heroes.

John Q Public is on to them and he's refusing their telegrams.

A film script (or play) is broken into three parts: Intro, Semi-Climax, and Climax/Conclusion. What we describe as a "Hollywood Ending" is the wrapping up of all the loose ends, generally to a happy conclusion. In a play a character goes through a change—generally of significance. In the 90-120 minutes from the beginning to the end, the individual in the story changes his world view. It doesn't matter what the change is, but the situations and circumstances lead the character to review their assumptions and alter them.

These morality plays no longer deal with the issues of the Greek Plays or the medieval themes of righteousness and punishment. Instead, they deal with a lone or rogue individual having an impact on the greater society, causing a type of paradigm shift that affects us all.

Yes, Hollywood believes in fairytales because they believe that story. They believe the evolution of the mind exists and the conscience of man actually changes, and when it changes, it changes for the better. The truth is that nothing changes, and history is a series of sequels. The irony is that Hollywood doesn't see that history. The sequel industry doesn't apply it to themselves.

If society doesn't change and adapt, as the Hollywood folks believe it should, then it means they didn't do a good job. It means they have to be more aggressive to send the message the next time. The subtle background message has been a constant, nagging shrill of "You will do as we say!" They've become nothing more than a propaganda mill for tired, old socialist themes.

The films become more and more obvious and focus, almost entirely, on these established themes: wealthy and successful people are bad, corporations and owners are analogies of Satan, the average Joe is constantly besieged and attacked by the wealthy and powerful (and is therefore totally innocent to his own predicament), and most importantly, America is bad. The only good people in the story are minorities. If the white guy isn't an obvious evil force, he is a buffoon. Soldiers may be brave and allow for dynamic adventures scenes, but there is nothing romantic, moral, and beautiful in the sacrifices a soldier makes. "Duty, honor, country," in Hollywood's eyes, are synonymous with "Hate, kill, torture."

If there is anything that is generally true about America it is that it is sentimental. It is Frank Capra, or the Heartland wishes it to be so. In our films we want to see a reflection of our better selves, where the good guy wins in the end, and the good guy is made in our own image. We tire of being told we're the problem and then are required to be the solution. We've heard that story before. We know how it ends.

Hollywood will keep missing that because they believe they can make a difference and their difference, their view, is the correct and unchallenged version.

At some point a new, common sense version of Hollywood will appear. It may be grassroots conservative film projects, popping up at corn field near you. It has to happen. Something has to fill the void. That's the way it always ends.

Keeping It

2005-10-16T09:27:00.000-07:00

In Toledo, Ohio a group of Nazis planned a legal, supposedly peaceful protest. In response, they got exactly what they wanted.

It has long been the plan of White Supremacist/Nazi organizations to incite to violence Blacks and other minorities as a spark for the "Great Race War" they want to fight.

The resulting looting and vandalizing by rogue gangs and anarchists gave the Nazi thugs the kind of press coverage they always hope to achieve in events like this. Good going, guys.

Much was made of the police actions of the day. Experts on these types of things suggested that the police handled it correctly, stating "well, it's only property damage."

Shoot to kill orders would have been preferable.

This type of episode cannot be tolerated. Allowing people to "blow off steam" (as the experts explained), with little or no consequences, is why these events keeping happening.

Violence in the streets should not be tolerated and it seems impossible to fathom that property damage should be allowed. The tavern owner who lost his business and livelihood to these thugs might have a different take on only property damage.

But on the other side of the world the dawn of a new age was being decided by the voters in Iraq. In the place that was the seed of civilization, a new generation of Mesopotamians were deciding if they could live peacefully and cooperatively under a new Constitution. The thrill of watching the birth of a new Republic, determined by democrat rule, did not appear to be handled or treated with the grandeur this event should have received.

As if this is something that happens everyday, the news appeared to treat the event as if a mayoral election was being held here at home.

A new civilization, in all that the word entails, was being decided on through peaceful elections, protected, monitored and guarded by the Free World.

Whatever the outcome, whether this Constitution is accepted or not, should not dampen the enormity and significance of the event. While it doesn't rise to the level of a Second Coming, it's close.

Contrast that with what happened in Toledo yesterday. The beauty of our Constitution is that even bastards like the Nazis have their day in the park.

"What kind of government have you given us?" a lady asked Benjamin Franklin after they had drafted a new Constitution.
"Madam," said Franklin, "We have given you a republic — if you can keep it."

Whether the Iraqis approve the new Constitution, or if they are able to maintain it once accepted, is anyone's guess. It doesn't matter what happens in 1, 10 or 1,000 years. Yesterday they had a chance. Yesterday, in Toledo, we once again tested our own Constitution and the Republic it defines. Before we criticize the outcome of the Iraqi vote or the events in the days and years ahead, let's see if we can keep it ourselves.

Tug of War

2005-10-14T05:47:00.000-07:00

As the Left self destructs as they give power to the radical wing of the Democratic Party, so too the Right is having its own tug-of-war for control of the Republican Party.  We see it playing out once again in the discussions over Harriet Miers.

Long the Party of business and prosperity, the Republicans have been fighting an internal battle to distance itself from the extreme Right wing.   The single issue over control of the Party has been abortion, but abortion is not the only problem.

The Party of Abolitionists has long been a defender of the common man.  In earlier incarnations the Party focused its energies on issues and areas that were in the purview of government:  equal treatment under the law, resistance to regulations that would not be business friendly, and programs to aid small businesses to form.  In other words, the Republican Party offered a hand up and never attempted to control the conscience of the individual.  There were tough penalties for breaking the law, but no attempts to prevent an individual from choosing the wrong road.  Republicans have long recognized that Free Will must exist and be respected, regardless of the recognition of the difficulties of temptation.  Without temptation we are cogs, living in a state no different from the government the Taliban wish to impose.  Choosing to resist temptation is the path to salvation and is how an individual demonstrates their virtue.  Using government to ban temptations, however unpalatable these temptations may be, is not the role of government and is not the way a Free People conduct themselves.

The Eisenhower years were indicative of the way Republicans conducted themselves.  Eisenhower didn't make a fuss when confronted with tough issues.  When needed he sent in the Calvary, but even with that, there was a strength and resolve in the way he handled matters.  Laws which intruded on the private aspects of Americans did not come up.  The mantra of "I am not my brother's keeper" dominated the body politic of the Republican Party.

When McGovern ran for President in 1972, the Democrats purged their membership of their right wing.  These near-fascists sought a home in the Republican Party, attempting to make government the Christian equivalent of the Ayatollah Khomeini.  With an iron fist, the Christian Right (not at all inclusive of American Christians) attempted to use government as their personal enforcers.

The mainstream Eisenhower-style Republicans have been dancing in the middle, with an occasional dance with the devil ever since.  In an attempt to purge the Party of the extremist Christian Right, many Republicans have voted for moderate Democrats to get the message across:  We will not allow the government to intrude in the private affairs of individuals, that is, we may be Christians ourselves, but we will not attempt to use government to mandate Christianity on others.

The Miers appointment is one more example of the battle the Republicans have been fighting since the Right attempted to take control of the Party—making abortion the litmus test for how conservatives govern.

At some point, a third Party will need to be formed to take up the slack.  The fascist-in-Chief Buchanan is a likely leader.

Unfortunately, that group, no longer supportive of a moderate position which respects the role of government and the right of individuals articulated in the Constitution, will be the difference between Republican and Democratic control of the country.

In other words, the Republicans either get comfortable with the fascists in their midst or they surrender the country to the communists.

Entitlement

2005-10-13T09:11:00.000-07:00

There is a story on FoxNews about a family that has brought their sixteenth child into the world. The fact that Fox believes this is newsworthy is a different matter, but the fact that it is unusual is telling. The snarky way it is discussed is also quite telling, as if all of us are to agree that this family's love of children is a bad thing. This particular family appears to take great pains to prevent burdening others (including the taxpayers) with their decision to have a very large family.

There was a time when a typical family had many children. It was not usual for a family to have eight to a dozen children, as many did not survive. With birth control methods and marriages occurring later in life, the number of children in a family has dropped considerably.

It is interesting to ponder the impact this change has had on the American and Western family. It is not difficult to tie the dates of this change with the change in attitude of Westerners.

In America, for example, we see countless advertisements regarding paying for your children's college tuition, helping them buy their first home, or buying them a car on their sixteenth birthday. All of this, undoubtedly, is related.

More children in a family change the parent/child dynamic. One of 8 or 9 children soon realizes that there will be nothing in a family pot set aside for them. They also see just how much of the family's resources goes into feeding and clothing the children, least of all the space the child takes up the home. They know they will be required to seek their own fortune, and help their siblings--both burdens not placed on the parents.

Larger families are forced to be more organized. Older children care for the younger children. Older children set off on their own to reduce the burdens the family has with the children still at home. Smaller families of one or two children seem to believe that their parent's assets are their own. Combined with a societal norm that a parent is no longer simply responsible for a child until they are 18 (and only then for their basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter), children born into small families grow up with a sense of entitlement of their parent's labors and this seems to extend to their view of government and the greater society.

It is no wonder that the most selfish and egocentric generation, the Baby Boomers, should share the paradigm shift of smaller, planned, families.

If the Baby Boomers are indicative of the result, it would be difficult to imagine that the shift to smaller families was of any good. The only thing the Baby Boomers are entitled to is our scorn, and the shame they've brought on themselves. They didn't even have the decency to replace themselves with sufficient offspring to take care of them in their old age.

Congratulations to The Duggars. Welcome to the world Johannah Faith.

Wind Direction

2005-10-07T05:01:00.000-07:00

William Kristol is apoplectic over the Miers nomination. Kristol has appeared on Fox News explaining his Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized reaction.

As a qualification, I don't understand it either. I believe that Miers is an unsuitable candidate. The nomination of Supreme Court Judge should supersede a single Presidency. Not that a President shouldn't put their mark on the country, but this mark seems too personal, akin to a child scratching out their name on the desk in the biology class.

Unlike the opinion many others have expressed, a Justice doesn't have to be a judge. They should be "the finest legal mind" in the country even if they've never practiced law or sat on the bench. The qualification bar is high.

What did not happen with the Miers nomination, beyond the cat fight many may have wanted, is the national discussion. More than a fight, Kristol made it clear that the role of the judiciary has changed over the last 20-30 years. "Judicial Activism" became commonplace during this period. The fight many conservatives wanted, if you want to call it that, is actually a discussion on the rightness or wrongness of this direction.

There isn't any reason to have that fight. As a nation we do not agree, nor will we.

There are those who believe that the role of a judge is to dispense justice, based on a particular line of thinking of what "justice" means (substitute fairness and government-mandated special treatment). The other camp, conservatives, believe that the role of a judge is to interpret and apply the law as it is written. If justice isn't a result, it is up to the legislative branches to make the laws "nicer."

With Miers as the nominee, many people feel we won't get to have this discussion. But more accurately, the conservatives won't get to slap down the opponent's position with a stick in your eye, try to legislate from the bench now, sucker.

For many, this is simply another example of Bush being a disappointment. After eight years of Clinton, many on the right wanted a savior. They wanted their President to agree and fight for all the things they believe are important. They wanted him to be a perpetual line drawer, rather than a compromiser, despite all evidence that he has always been a compromiser.

Bush isn't our savior. He's just a man who happens to be the President, representing all Americans in the middle.

Sometimes he makes a bad decision, as he did with Miers.

Many might argue that Bush doesn't seem to be reading his constituency accurately. But that is because those on the right believe they have in their hands on the levers of power. They inaccurately believe that the Republican majority means they have control. Republicans aren't the extreme right. Believing that requires you to swallow the Left's Kool Aid. Republicans are moderates. The Right needs to get their head out of the clouds. There isn't going to be a savior. The extreme right is in the minority and should have no reason to expect that their extreme views should be represented anymore strongly than those on the fringe left. Even when they're correct.

Kristol, like many others, wanted the President, in this single action, to change the direction the country has been going. They wanted the President to reverse 30 years of wrong-headedness with a swoop of his magic Presidential wand, to name a nominee that would put the Constitution first, regardless of perception.

It's no wonder they were sorely disappointed. They wanted a Frank Capra Hollywood ending with William Holden as the star. They got Ed Wood, staring Chuck Norris.

Leaping Frogs

2005-10-04T19:02:00.000-07:00

No.

Reasonable Expectations

2005-10-04T10:59:00.000-07:00

During the recent catastrophes (Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and the fires in Southern California) a recurring issue is discussed; specifically, the government (either Federal or local) has been questioned on the effectiveness of their response.  What never seems to enter into the conversation is if there should be a response at all.  It is taken as a given.

All of us watched the rooftop rescues in New Orleans.  We watched the delivery of gasoline to the vehicles stranded on the highways making their way from Houston to the North.  In the wild fires in California we heard reports that the fire department contacted residents to prepare them to evacuate.  One firefighter reported that they also asked people for a next of kin, in an attempt to convey the seriousness of the fires.  It was asked primarily to motivate people to leave.

In all of these cases, the burden of responsibility appears to have shifted to government rather than where it belongs, with the individual.

When a serious storm approaches the weather channels broadcast the path and expected severity.  Fifty years ago we had neither the ability to forecast storms as accurately nor the broadcast systems to get the word out.  Fifty years ago people living in hurricane and tornado regions would have given their life's savings for 15 minutes notice.  Now we have days and broadcast speakers.  In the past, people wanted enough time to get into their storm cellars or head to higher ground.  They did not expect the government to ride up on white stallions to carry them to safety nor would they have expected the Calvary to come to their rescue if they did not heed the warnings, or restore their homes, towns, or villages after the storm had passed.

In such a short period of time the responsibility has shifted.  Far too many people believe that the bearer of the message is somehow responsible for the outcome, cleanup, and restoration of services.

After Hurricane Rita there were people who were sitting in their houses, waiting for the electricity, water, and telephone services to be restored, complaining they'd not seen any sign of the Red Cross or FEMA.  They hadn't set out to get to town.  They were essentially sitting on their front porches waiting for someone to bring them food and water.

That "Government" these people expect to warn them, transport them, and give them money to make repairs, is every one of us.  The Government of the United States is not some disparate, separate entity.  The coffers are made up of the pennies we pay when we perform an hour's labor or is tacked on to the cost of the loaf of bread we purchase.  Certainly these people understand that the government isn't in business.  The only money and resources the government has is that which we give it.  These people expect the rest of us to take care of them and give them money should bad luck darken their doors.  They don't even sound grateful.  They somehow have gotten the idea that they are entitled to both our labor and our money.

These are sorry excuses for Americans.

Ignore Them

2005-10-03T05:05:00.000-07:00

David Horowitz a former cheerleader for socialists in America has made it his life's calling to rout out biased liberals in Academia with the goal of restoring balance of opinion and thought.

At any give time it is possible to find a blog entry from Horowitz, detailing a battle he's engaged in with members of the intellectual elite:

First I am called a liar, then an extremist and then a McCarthyite. For what? Associating Isserman with his Hamilton colleagues who invited a terrorist to be on their faculty, while boycotting how many law-abiding conservatives? I could say "typical Isserman" not to have addressed the Rosenberg issue, or the way I was invited, or the fact that I have been airbrushed out of the academic record by him as well as his colleagues, or that his "article" was really just an attempt to smear the academic freedom movement, since who cares about a five minute segment on the O'Reilly Factor that took place almost a year ago?

What Horowitz may be incapable of understanding is that his reporting on these personal and bitter battles with academics he comes off like a gossiping and embittered spoil sport. He cares too much what they think, so much so, that he thinks we will too. Only academics care what academics think. The rest of us are perfectly capable of ignoring them.

Horowitz is correct in his concerns of a one-sided view influencing the hearts and minds of those in college. Something needs to be done; however, his approach to the problem is flawed.

Instead of attempting to alter the one-sided view of things in academia he should do what most of the country does in response to their nonsense: Stop caring what they think. Horowitz is still playing from the old playbook. He needs to update his approach.

In every possible way the rest of the country needs to boycott institutions who practice socialism and historical revisionism. If every concerned parent boycotted these institutions, their hiring practices and methods would alter in one year. Financial ruin has a tendency to get folk's attention. That is the campaign that Horowitz should champion.

In the quoted piece above Horowitz makes the point that he has been omitted from the historical record of the 1960s—as a major player during that turbulent time, any unbiased accounting of the era should include his influence.

He still cares what they think. He could have been a contender!

The situation will not change for academia or Horowitz until he stops caring what they think.

Rather than attempting to alter academia, Horowitz would do better to alter Corporate America's current hiring practices. Encourage Corporate America to institute training programs to teach people the skills they need in order to do the work they need, rather than require paper from socialist-leaning institutions. Leave the business of a liberal arts education up to the individual to pursue. Teach accounting, business management, and marketing in on-the-job apprenticeship and mentoring programs and take students directly from high school.

Academia, as we know it, would modify its approach and practices immediately or they'd become as financially bankrupt as they're currently morally bankrupt. It couldn't happen to a more deserving group.

Academia, in all its futility, will become a footnote in history as other men and women take up the call to record history as it actually occurred.

The Obvious

2005-10-02T05:57:00.000-07:00

The book "Love My Rifle More Than You" by Kayla Williams has been discussed as an indictment of the American military for being sexist and the fate of female soldiers fraught with indignities.

It is an interesting predicament. There are two broad methods to deal with this:

Forbid male members of the military from acting like boys and court martial or dishonorably discharge all men who act like men.
Forbid women from participation in the military.

While Williams's book isn't limited to this topic, it is likely a female perspective, with a bent on over-analysis of the daily life and experiences of a soldier. In other words, classic female whining when the going gets tough or believing that their individual fate is important or significant.

She focuses a great deal of attention on the ability of women to get special attention in the military—up to and including getting out of difficult assignments and having to endure endless pursuits for sexual favors.

The result of women in the military, as Williams describes, seems to validate all of the concerns of having women in the military. If women are not, uniformly, able to rise to the challenge, to resist the temptation to get off easy for being a woman, for taking advantage of their ability to influence men, then they have proven that women don't belong there.

Men make better soldiers. If the women are, self admittedly, getting off easy and disrupting the camaraderie and bonding necessary for selfless-teamwork, the test is complete. The results are in. Women do not make good soldiers and the few that might, reduce the overall effectiveness of the military in the way it influences the men.

But we already knew that.

Hypothetically Speaking

2005-10-01T17:08:00.000-07:00

If I suggested that the crime rate would decrease if no more human beings were born, it would be correct. If I suggested that we prohibit births of white babies, the crime rate would go down. If I suggested any other race, the crime rate would go down.

It is a statistically viable statement, no matter what group you limit it to. It does not suggest that any race commits more crime. It merely states that if you decrease the population of a specific group, any group, the crime rate will decrease. Some percentage of the children who were never born would not be alive to commit crime; therefore, the crime rate would decrease.

Bill Bennett has been called on the politically incorrect carpet for making a statement that suggests that there are is no societal rational for abortion. He explained his controversial remarks on Fox News Hannity and Colmes:

BENNETT: Sure. Well, the context was a radio show that I was doing yesterday, and the topic was abortion and we were talking about bad arguments in regard to abortion. A caller suggested he was opposed to abortion because he said if there were more babies there would be, eventually, more tax payers and a larger GNP, a smaller deficit. I said you want to be careful with that kind of argument because someone could postulate a situation where child's not likely to be a productive taxpayer. I said, arguments in which you take something that's far out, like the GNP and try to connect it up with abortion are tricky. I said make the case of abortion on the basis of life and protecting life. I said abortion is invoked in another way — you could make an argument that if you wanted to lower the crime rate, you saw the quote — you could practice abortion in very large numbers. You could do it in the black community. You could do it in other places. This is, by the way, the subject of a book for economics by a professor at Yale.

I said, however, if you were to practice that, widespread abortion in the black community or any other community, it would be ridiculous, impossible, and I appreciate you putting it on the screen, morally reprehensible. So I think morally reprehensible, when that is included in the quote makes it perfectly clear what my position is. A number of the people whom you have cited as condemning me have not made the inclusion of that remark, and so they make it seem, Alan, as if I am supporting such a monstrous idea, which of course I don't.

Bennett's original remarks (that touched off the controversy) seemed like a fairly logical, hypothetical to explain a complicated point:

I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do. But your crime rate would go down.

Bennett has been accused of being a racist, of making hateful remarks, and of hurting the feelings of blacks.

This only demonstrates that far too many people are either vicious (Pelosi would qualify) or ignorant. Hypothetical examples are common among those who understand argument. Only the simple minded, ignorant, or intentionally blond would take his remarks as anything other than hypothetical.

Can and Should

2005-09-30T05:51:00.000-07:00

It has been estimated that only 25% of the people affected by Hurricane Katrina had flood insurance.  Since the numbers are so low the government has decided to extend flood coverage to everyone.

I hope this means that the individuals who had the good sense to pay for flood insurance get their money returned.  It seems like the only fair thing to do.  There is no reason why responsible citizens should carry the burden when no one else is required to do so in order to get the benefit.

But all of this assumes that we should be rebuilding New Orleans or rebuilding houses in the places flooded by the levy breaks.

Some will argue that New Orleans went several hundred years without experiencing a problem.  There would be no reason to expect that it might be a hundred or more years before we they are flushed out again.

This is the same logic that allows individuals to get insurance coverage when they live in a flood plain—in 100 year flood zones.  What the statistically challenged don't realize, however, is that a flood can occur in a "100 Year Flood Zone" this year, and every year for the next 20 years.

It is also possible (likely or not) for New Orleans to experience levy breaks multiple times a year, for more than a dozen years.  The question changes when we look at it realistically as opposed to ideally.  Would we be willing to rebuild New Orleans every year for the next 20 years?  If the answer is "no" then why is the answer different when we pay for it once every 100 years, rather than twice in the same decade?

There has been much emphasis on how to protect New Orleans. There have been multiple tracks to the discussions of approaches of making the levies capable of withstanding Category 5 hurricanes.

Most of these discussions focus on the Corps of Engineers and the various plans discussed over the last few decades to fix the levy problems, rather than the bigger question of "Should we do anything?"

All of this ignores a much bigger issue:  Should the citizens of the United States rebuild New Orleans and fix the levies.  There is always the choice of allowing the levies to break, flooding New Orleans, and rebuilding the infrastructure to support one of the world's busiest ports, in a land area not vulnerable to flooding.

If put to a plebiscite, I wonder how many citizens would vote to leave New Orleans under water and deny flood insurance benefits to people who didn't pay for it.

I'd hope it would be a huge victory for common sense, but common sense prevents me from coming to that conclusion.

Reset Button

2005-09-29T15:30:00.000-07:00

Every now and again civilization hits a reset button. The circumstances are generally horrific. The outcome, however, is generally for the better. If there was a way to achieve the outcome without the horror, sadness, and misery, we'd probably hit the reset button all the time. Since it is painful, however, and generally outside our control, we avoid it. It may be that the time has come for a reset.

In modern times there can be nothing more horrible than World War II. Hitler's brutality set a new bar. But if we look at the events leading up to WWII, the world wide depression, squalor-like living conditions, and near-starvation caused by poverty in the Old and New World, WWII was a salvation and a way out.

The deaths of so many also benefited us. This is not to say that we want to repeat this sort of thing intentionally, but imagining what the world would look like today without the deaths of over fifty million is not pleasant.

We've more than replaced those killed in WWII so it isn't that the planet cannot accommodate that number—it is likely it can accommodate many more than are alive today, but what seems to occur, over time, is a rise in the numbers of impoverished, desperate, debilitated, or depraved.

Wars have a side benefit of taking care of those problems.
What also takes care of these problems are other great killers:
- Plagues
- Influenza
- Hate

So while we loathe the disasters that come our way we benefit from them enormously.

In witnessing the numbers of desperate, debilitated, and depraved who were unable to leave New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, it may very well be that nature provided us with a new kind of reset button. This one didn't kill all those in her path, but it scattered them.

Perhaps scattering people, or shaking them to attention, is just what was needed to close the gap between the middle classes and those who live their lives as middle class parasites.

Unfortunately, it is more likely that we'll recreate the environment and infrastructure to allow these people to once again prey on the middle class. Another kind of reset will occur later on.

Nature both natural and of the humankind will demand a rematch.

Anonymity

2005-09-28T06:42:00.000-07:00

It will not be long before Corporate America adds paperwork with the following statement to their New Hire bundle:

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I do not and have not ever had a weblog. Further, I understand that if I at some time in the future, while in the employ of Company, I publish or contribute to a weblog, that I will notify Human Resources immediately with the full knowledge that this action may be grounds for immediate termination. Failure to notify Human Resources of these activities could result in legal proceedings brought against me, including, but not limited to, the payment of damages.

The fault, however, is not with Corporate America. A business owner, large or small, corporate or sole proprietor, has a responsibility to its share holders, employees, and customers. This responsibility involves the reduction of liability.

Beyond the risks associated with competition, the single most significant risk to a business is lawsuit—lawsuits from within.

How could, for example, a company defend itself against a malicious sexual harassment case when the employee accused has written extensively about their preferences in the human form.

Similarly, how could a company protect its copyrights and trademarks when it allows its employees to mention them in a weblog?

While this is not a threat to Free Speech, it is an indication that civil law is in dire need of reform. A business owner is caught between his desire to respect the private lives of his employees, but at the same time not condone any activities or opinions that run contrary to popular opinion, thus putting his business at risk.

But it really isn't terribly complicated to understand why a business owner would be concerned. If a sexual harassment case was legitimate, using whatever means necessary and available (including a weblog) would be in the prosecutor's best interest. Those who normally shout "Free Speech! Free Speech!" would be quick to don new signs "Fry the Bastard" with little or no concern for the gag order simultaneously imposed on all those who publish a weblog.

The public in general, and the courts specifically, no longer recognize that it is possible and common for an individual to have one mode of behavior and conduct for the workplace and another for the bar, bedroom, or blog. Rather, it is now common to believe that an individual's conduct in every sphere, personal, professional, and public is the same.

A company's reputation is also at risk when one of its employees is likely to comment on it in a public way—through a weblog. At one time it was incredibly difficult for the common man to have access to the public. Generally they had to get to the public through a member of the established media. Only the most sensational accusations would get the ear of the mainstream press.

With weblogs, however, anyone with an Internet connection can blast the reputation of a company and permanently tarnish its relations with shareholders and customers.

A responsible individual wishing to make their political and personal opinions known then has only one option, if they wish to remain employable by mainstream America: Manage a weblog anonymously.

Welcome to From the Grand Stand.